Hi Jonathan,

Am 15.08.2013 19:29, schrieb Jonathan Austin:
> Hi André
> 
> (I've put RMK and LAKML back on Cc: they got dropped somewhere along the way)
> 
> On 14/08/13 22:21, André Hentschel wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>> Now we've only got one instruction between the store and the load
>>>>>>>> and risk stalling the pipeline...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dave M cautiously says "The ancient advice was that one instruction
>>>>>>>> was enough" but this is very core dependent... I wonder if anyone
>>>>>>>> has a good idea about whether this is an issue here...?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We could use a ldrd at the top, that'd be nearly what we have right
>>>>>>> now, don't we?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yea, that'd be good - as far as I can see from an 1136 TRM, the ldrd 
>>>>>> *may* be two cycles (depending on alignment of the words) but the ldr 
>>>>>> and ldrne will always be two cycles. Ahhh, the joys of modifying the 
>>>>>> fast path ;)
>>>
>>> Was expecting to see something that reflected this discussion,
>>
>> Ah ok, i misunderstood that, sry.
>> Something like that?
>>
>> From: André Hentschel <n...@dawncrow.de>
>>
>> This patch intents to reduce loading instructions when the resulting value 
>> is not used.
>> It's a follow up on a4780adeefd042482f624f5e0d577bf9cdcbb760
>>
> 
> You caught me just before running away for a week of holiday, but I've 
> managed to squeeze in a bit of testing - hope this helps - I'll try to be 
> clear about what I have/haven't tested so you can judge for yourself how much 
> weight to give this.

Thanks for testing it anyway, and happy holiday!

> What I've tested:
> 
> * Apply your code to 3.11-rc5
> * Boot on Integrator CP (1176 r1p0) and run a full Debian Wheezy init
> 
> --> It works!
> 
> I also applied the following diff and rebuilt to check that we were really 
> testing the V6 NOT V6K path here:
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/tls.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/tls.h
> index 31743f7..71dfe82 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/tls.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/tls.h
> @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@
>  #define switch_tls     switch_tls_v6
>  #elif defined(CONFIG_CPU_32v6K)
>  #define tls_emu                0
> +#error
>  #define has_tls_reg            1
>  #define switch_tls     switch_tls_v6k
>  #else
> 
> What I've *not* tested:
> * As this CPU does not have the tls register, I haven't run any tests that 
> try to read/write it, but we wouldn't expect that to work, right?
> * Haven't tried a V7 platform, as I understand you've already done that.
> * Haven't verified it still builds for v4 (which was the problem for ldrd in 
> the past and now we've put it back, so that's important)

It shouldn't matter as v4 would not use the v6 codepath, would it?

> * Performance impact

I only could test it on v7, would be interesting to see some v6, v5, ... 
"benchmarks", though.

> 
> I think it'd be good if you can verify the bottom two points - especially the 
> ldrd one: perhaps Russell can tell you which platform it broke on before?
> 
> So, that's a
> Tested-by: Jonathan Austin <jonathan.aus...@arm.com>
> 
> If you want it :)

sure, thx.

> Hope that helps,
> 
> Jonny
> 
>> Signed-off-by: André Hentschel <n...@dawncrow.de>
>>
>> ---
>> This patch is against 28fbc8b6a29c849a3f03a6b05010d4b584055665
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/tls.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/tls.h
>> index 83259b8..31743f7 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/tls.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/tls.h
>> @@ -3,29 +3,31 @@
>>
>>   #ifdef __ASSEMBLY__
>>   #include <asm/asm-offsets.h>
>> -    .macro switch_tls_none, base, tp, tpuser, tmp1, tmp2
>> +    .macro switch_tls_none, prev, next, tp, tpuser, tmp1, tmp2
>>       .endm
>>
>> -    .macro switch_tls_v6k, base, tp, tpuser, tmp1, tmp2
>> +    .macro switch_tls_v6k, prev, next, tp, tpuser, tmp1, tmp2
>> +    ldrd    \tp, \tpuser, [\next, #TI_TP_VALUE]    @ get the next TLS and 
>> user r/w register
>>       mrc    p15, 0, \tmp2, c13, c0, 2    @ get the user r/w register
>>       mcr    p15, 0, \tp, c13, c0, 3        @ set TLS register
>>       mcr    p15, 0, \tpuser, c13, c0, 2    @ and the user r/w register
>> -    str    \tmp2, [\base, #TI_TP_VALUE + 4] @ save it
>> +    str    \tmp2, [\prev, #TI_TP_VALUE + 4] @ save it
>>       .endm
>>
>> -    .macro switch_tls_v6, base, tp, tpuser, tmp1, tmp2
>> +    .macro switch_tls_v6, prev, next, tp, tpuser, tmp1, tmp2
>> +    ldrd    \tp, \tpuser, [\next, #TI_TP_VALUE]
>>       ldr    \tmp1, =elf_hwcap
>>       ldr    \tmp1, [\tmp1, #0]
>>       mov    \tmp2, #0xffff0fff
>>       tst    \tmp1, #HWCAP_TLS        @ hardware TLS available?
>>       streq    \tp, [\tmp2, #-15]        @ set TLS value at 0xffff0ff0
>> -    mrcne    p15, 0, \tmp2, c13, c0, 2    @ get the user r/w register
>> +    mrcne    p15, 0, \tmp2, c13, c0, 2    @ get the previous user r/w 
>> register
>>       mcrne    p15, 0, \tp, c13, c0, 3        @ yes, set TLS register
>>       mcrne    p15, 0, \tpuser, c13, c0, 2    @ set user r/w register
>> -    strne    \tmp2, [\base, #TI_TP_VALUE + 4] @ save it
>> +    strne    \tmp2, [\prev, #TI_TP_VALUE + 4] @ save it
>>       .endm
>>
>> -    .macro switch_tls_software, base, tp, tpuser, tmp1, tmp2
>> +    .macro switch_tls_software, prev, next, tp, tpuser, tmp1, tmp2
>>       mov    \tmp1, #0xffff0fff
>>       str    \tp, [\tmp1, #-15]        @ set TLS value at 0xffff0ff0
>>       .endm
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/entry-armv.S b/arch/arm/kernel/entry-armv.S
>> index d40d0ef..11112de 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/entry-armv.S
>> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/entry-armv.S
>> @@ -689,12 +689,10 @@ ENTRY(__switch_to)
>>    THUMB(    stmia    ip!, {r4 - sl, fp}       )    @ Store most regs on 
>> stack
>>    THUMB(    str    sp, [ip], #4           )
>>    THUMB(    str    lr, [ip], #4           )
>> -    ldr    r4, [r2, #TI_TP_VALUE]
>> -    ldr    r5, [r2, #TI_TP_VALUE + 4]
>>   #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_USE_DOMAINS
>>       ldr    r6, [r2, #TI_CPU_DOMAIN]
>>   #endif
>> -    switch_tls r1, r4, r5, r3, r7
>> +    switch_tls r1, r2, r4, r5, r3, r7
>>   #if defined(CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR) && !defined(CONFIG_SMP)
>>       ldr    r7, [r2, #TI_TASK]
>>       ldr    r8, =__stack_chk_guard
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> -- 
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to